Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Kim Fuess said:

> So Truman tell me why pull codes should be published.
> Give me a good reason other then they did it at the academic
> institution you attended.  I know you think that riders should
> not care that they are part of the public record but give me a
> good reason why AERC needs to publish them individually.
I am not Truman, but A reason for publishing the pull codes is the same
as the reason for publishing the rest of the ride results, so that
people who were there can look at them and confirm that they are
accurate before they become a part of the permanent record.

This is actually a pretty good reason.  It wasn't until the AERC started
publishing the pull codes that the AERC became aware that the
information wasn't being collected accurately.

Of course, it still isn't being collected accurately for several
reasons.

1) Because it is being published some people are deliberately
manipulating the data so that it doesn't "look bad" to the public (who
now has access to it).

2) There are MANY people who don't care if the pull code is accurate so
they aren't informing the AERC of any inaccuracies that are published.

But I am willing to wager that the data currently being collected with
respect to pull codes is more accurate now than when it wasn't being
published.

However, it is possible that publishing it has served its purpose.
Members are now aware that this data is being collected and can make an
effort for the information to be recorded accurately (if they care),
vets are aware that somebody might actually do something with the data
and therefore it is more important for it to be accurate so continuing
to publish it no longer confers any benefits....or at least it doesn't
confer enough benefits to outwiegh number 1 above.

And I am personally of the opinion that part of the problem with the
current reporting of the pull codes is the unfortunate selection of the
words for the designation "Rider Option."  Since it gives many riders
the impression that they would have opted to go on with their
lame/metabolicly compromised horse if they hadn't been pulled.  Whereas
in reality pretty much all riders OPT not to go on with a lame or
metabolically compromised horse.  It leaves the impression that the vet
HAD to pull the horse because otherwise the uncaring unfeeling rider
would have just ridden the horse into the ground.

I prefer the designations that virtually all other sport disciplines
make:  They use the expressions of either "disqualified" or "withdrawn."
A disqualified participant is somebody who was removed from the
competition by the officials, a withdrawn participant is somebody who
was removed from the competition by the participant despite the fact
that there is no official reason that they cannot continue.

If the AERC then wants to give the reason for either the
disqualification or the withdrawl to make the information more useful,
they can do so....however, if the participant is withdrawn, then the
"reason" for that and its accuracy is entirely up to the participant to
provide, and there is nothing the officials can do if the participant is
less than forthcoming or honest with their reasons.

Consequently, I think it is a bit silly for the AERC to attempt to keep
track of such reasons.  Riders should be allowed to withdraw from the
competition (after they have been officially cleared to continue) for
whatever reason they damn well please, and the AERC should just put down
"withdrawn" as the reason for the DNF.  It would be nice to be able to
get a reason from the riders for why they decided not to continue;
however, many endurance riders elect not to continue simply because "it
doesn't feel right" to do so, and attempting to categorize it makes the
information inaccurate even before the reason is uttered let alone the
ink has dried on the paper.  If there were an OBVIOUS reason not to
continue, presumably the officials would have identified it and
disqualified the participant.

I pulled my horse from a ride one time because "the horse wasn't having
any fun."  (being a member of the Janet Ruprecht sect that says the
first commandment of horsemanship is "Rule number one, the horse has to
have fun.") You tell me, which of the AERC's pull codes should be used
there?

kat
Orange County, Calif.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=